See also: IRC log
<pratul> Agenda is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/0008.html
<scribe> scribenick: kirkw
schribe: Kirk Wilson
<scribe> scribe: Kirk Wilson
<johnarwe_> minutes at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2008Oct/att-0006/20081002-sml-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: Minutes approved without objection.
Issue 5053: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5153
John: Issue has to do with word order and clarification.
Pratul: Issue is, Shall we endorse the resolution?
RESOLUTION: We endorse the resolution.
Issue 5155: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5155
RESOLUTION: We endorse the resolution.
John: Only two open, from MSM and Pratul for draft of XLink note.
Pratul: Will have XLink note for F2F.
My phone connect just dead on me. Let me get back on.
Discussion of section 2
Correction to p. 1 line 25:
<johnarwe_> inconsistency betw 1.25 and 3.21-22 to be corrected
<johnarwe_> btw, for the IRC record, for today I am repping IBM since Sandy is not able to attend
<Kumar> from : Therefore, each test will be represented by an SML-IF document.
<Kumar> to : Therefore, all tests, except the tests that test the locator element, will be represented by an SML-IF document.
<johnarwe_> 2.16 documentS
RESOLUTION: Text as pasted in IRC is approved.
<johnarwe_> 4. 16 resultS
<johnarwe_> 4.16 and -> or
<johnarwe_> 4.17 resultS
<johnarwe_> 4.23 This -> Comparing test results (so it refers back to 1st sentence, not 2nd, which seems like the original intent)
John: bottom of p. 4.37: We have
additional question if SML-IF document is valid, whether the
model is SML valid. This leads to the possibility of a tertiary
value of the results. Results, therefore, are not simply a
boolean value.
... There are three states: SML-IF invalid vs. SML-IF valid
(which can be SML valid or invalid)
Kumar: Addressed by lines 1 - 8
on p. 5.
... This is not a problem for the two implementations that we
know. It will be clear from the test time what the source of
the error is.
John: Boolean is correct: Issue is what can be guaranteed from the spec and what you can know as a human. The two are not the same.
RESOLUTION: No objections from current attendees to approving the test-plan doc with the specific change on p. 1.
s/text-/test-
See Ginny's email.
<pratul> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-sml/2008Oct/0010.html
<pratul> an SML reference (sml:ref = true) using only unrecognized schemes. (#1 above)
Discussion: SML references using
unrecognized schemes.
... What is the expected result of the test?
John: If targetRequired, then SML reference is invalid.
Kumar: Doesn't see much value in writing such a test case. If both implementations doesn't understand the reference schemes, there is no issue of interoperability.
John: We need to answer the
question of whether we are starting with COSMOS and then just
discuss additional test cases?
... Pratul agrees we should start with this question.
RESOLUTION: Agreed without objection to start with accepting the COSMOS test suite.
Returning to considering Ginny's list:
<pratul> - an SML reference (sml:ref = true) using only unrecognized schemes. (#1 above)
Kumar: Proposal is NOT to add it.
John: If Ginny was to write such a case, I would not reject it.
RESOLUTION: The group will not write such a case, but if Ginny were to write a case, we would accept it.
Second Test Case: does not look like there are tests that test the necessary processing to identify identical targets (section 4.2.3) E.g., bullet #2 is not tested.
Kumar: MS implementation could not test such a condition, since it supports only the SML URI reference scheme.
Pratul: We have different aliases pointing to the same element.
<johnarwe_> sml 4.2.3 #2 starts Otherwise, a model validator MUST consider both targets to be different when
Pratul: Proposal is to add this test case.
RESOLUTION: We
should add a test case to cover this scenario.
...Pratul: have one or more test cases.
<pratul> I don't see deref() tests for each bullet in section 4.2.7, 1.b.
Third Test Case: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.
<pratul> Ginny: I don't see deref() tests for each bullet in section 4.2.7, 1.b.
NOTE: to myself--correct this copy error during editing.
Pratul: Proposal is to add test case to cover this scenario: 1.b test case.
<pratul> Proposal: Add test case(s) to cover 4.2.7, 1(b)
Kumar: Since MS supports only one scheme, MS could not test it.
RESOLUTION: If
anybody is willing to write the test case, we will accept
it.
... Attendees are "neutral" to this test case.
Fourth issue: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.
<pratul> Ginny: no test for section 4.3.1, bullet 1 (wrong namespace for 'uri') and bullet 1.a.
<Kumar> Third bullet case will fall into the optional features test bucket.
Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases for this scenario.
RESOLUTION: We
should add a test case to cover this scenario.
...Kumar: there may be a test case for this.
Fifth bullet: no targetRequired tests for derivation by restriction or substitution groups (there are tests for these in targetElement and targetType) - section 5.1.2.1, bullet 1.b and section 5.1.2.2 (for targetRequired).
Pratul: Proposal is to add these test cases.
Kumar: Agreed.
RESULTION: We should add test cases to cover this scenario.
Sixth bullet: no deref() test for sml:selector or sml:field, sections 5.2.1.2 - bullets 1 and 2.
Kumar: We have test cases for this; also COSMOS.
<Kumar> InValidKeyDuplicate.xml
Kumar: Ginny may mean what happens if there are invalid XPath.
Pratul: We need more information
from Ginny regarding what she means and go on from there.
... Pratul will write Ginny an email after the call.
Seventh bullet: no test for section 5.2.1.2, bullet 4.
Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases for this, if COSMOS has no test cases for this scenario.
RESOLUTION: Agreed, no objections.
Eigth bullet: acyclic tests do not mention "intra-document references" so I assume there may not be a test for this. The tests only mention "inter-document references".
Pratul: Proposal is to add test cases to cover intra-document acyclic constraint for intra-document references.
RESOLUTION: We agree with no objections.
Pratul: Should we have a meeting
next week?
... We will meet next week.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/thatt/that/ Succeeded: s/are states/are three states/ Succeeded: s/text/test/ FAILED: s/text-/test-/ Succeeded: s/set/test/ Succeeded: s/we/I/ Succeeded: s/can/is willing to/ Succeeded: s/This test/Third bullet/ Succeeded: s/id-constraint-KeyDuplicate-invalid.xml/InValidKeyDuplicate.xml/ Succeeded: s/wekk/week/ Found ScribeNick: kirkw Found Scribe: Kirk Wilson WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Discussion Ginny John Kirk Kumar Microsoft NOTE P15 P4 Pratul Proposal RESULTION aaaa johnarwe_ joined kirkw schribe scribenick sml trackbot You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Regrets: Sandy MSM Ginny WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting Got date from IRC log name: 16 Oct 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/16-sml-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]